|
|
Product data for multiple attic style sprinklers simply states that a hose allowance must be provided in accordance with NFPA 13 when using special application attic style sprinklers.
My logic, therefore, is that unused attic spaces show up as light hazard in A.5.2 (2016 Edition) and thus the hose allowance is 100 gpm for combustible attic spaces that don't house mechanical equipment or storage. Am I off base here? While it isn't my case I would think the presence of mechanical equipment or storage in the attic would bump the density at least to OH1 and 250 gpm for the hose allowance. Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
2 Comments
Wayne Ammons
7/3/2019 07:11:15 pm
Since there haven’t been any responses I’ll just give my initial thoughts to your inquiry. The only reference to unused attic hazard classification I found in NFPA 13 was the annex material you already cited. If the attic will contain any combustibles or fuel loads that may drive that hazard classification up, I think you must then resort to an evaluation of the hazard classification based on the definitions of light and ordinary hazards found in chapter 3, which may require consultation with an engineer. If the sprinkler manufacturer specifications do not specify a hose demand, you must base the hose demand on the requirements of NFPA 13.
Wayne Ammons
7/3/2019 08:35:05 pm
Apologies, I should have referenced chapter 5 and not chapter 3. Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop Sept. '21 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
October 2021
PE PREP SERIES
|
RSS Feed
